HooperCast Episode 2: The Change-Up

Another Episode! Mild cursing towards the end. I warned you. 

Would you like to listen to this on your mobile device? I thought you might:

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREE!

HooperCast Episode 1: Piranha 3D

Look, there's mild cursing in here. If you can't stomach it, don't listen. There: A disclaimer.

NOW DOWNLOADABLE!!! click here to download!

HooperCast Episode 0

'Green Lantern' Review

I’ve wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailers. Even that first one, which most people were iffy about. The effects weren’t done and an awful lot of it seemed to take place before Hal gets the ring. I saw that awesome 4-minute WonderCon trailer. I saw the final trailer, heard the initial critical reaction, as well as the comments of my peers. A number of people did not like the film and felt that it had underperformed. This film has a shocking 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. For the record, I did not seek out this information. I overheard it. Despite it all, there was one that stated his enjoyment of the film, despite shortcomings that seemed to overall not get in the way of the film’s fun. Because of this, I continued my interest in seeing this film.

I was not disappointed.

The movie opens with a narration by Tomar-Re, who explains the origins of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force who patrol the universe and protect it. They harness green energy, of which there is basically an unlimited amount on their planet headquarters, Oa. They each wield a green Power Ring, which is powered by the wearer’s strength of will. The opening narration does a much better job of setting this up than I probably am.

 

It also sets up the Parallax, a malevolent force consisting of pure fear. It is shown battling and wounding Green Lantern Abin Sur, who escapes and lands on Earth, instructing the ring to seek out a successor for him. 

We are then presented with Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds, his exceptional smart-assness underplayed), an overconfident, reckless pilot. Hal seems to adopt this cockiness for two reasons: First, because he has the skill to back it up, and second, as a defense mechanism against the fearful memory of the day his father died. Hal is chosen by the ring and taken to the wreckage of Abin Sur’s ship, where he is given the ring and his lantern. He is eventually taken to Oa, where he meets other members of the Corps, including Kilowog (unimaginatively voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan) and Sinestro (Mark Strong). They train him and teach him how to use his ring, which turns his thoughts into tangible reality. Without giving away too much of the plot, we are also introduced to Hal’s fellow pilot and love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) and scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard). At a certain point, the Parallax comes to Earth to destroy it.

I am pleased to report that I liked this movie very much. More than I thought I would. Let’s start with the actors. Ryan Reynolds was good as Hal Jordan. I was kind of glad that he didn’t spout off a large arsenal of one-liners and witty jokes. It made Hal Jordan seem more like a character and less like Reynolds himself. He is the movie’s focus, and as such, he should be convincing enough for us to want him to succeed. He does indeed. Peter Sarsgaard is marvelous as Hector Hammond. As a piece of the Parallax slowly infects his body, we see him descend beautifully from innocent brilliance into deranged madness. He brought a fresh take on a character that could have been far less interesting to watch on screen. Kudos as well to Mark Strong for completely embodying Sinestro. They nailed his character and I can’t wait to see him in a sequel.

Let’s talk about Blake Lively: The Elephant in the Room. I’ve heard a couple of complaints about her in this movie, and I’ll admit I was worried that she would not be great in it, but she does just fine. I wouldn’t say she didn’t have a lot to do, because she had enough. She didn’t have to display a wide range of emotion, so maybe that’s why she did just fine. Honestly, she got the job done and though they probably could have gotten someone better for this role, they certainly could have done much worse than Blake Lively. Especially in this film. Any issues anyone might have with her this time around has zero effect on the movie. Don't worry.

The special effects are amazing in this film. The world-building is incredible. Bringing Oa to the screen was a success, not to mention the Parallax, which is absolutely breathtaking to look at. It was essential that they nail this aspect of the film, since so much of it takes place in outer space. Aside from a few bad green screen shots, the outer space stuff looked great.

I also want to note the flying sequences in this film. It’s always fun to see movies depict flight and to see filmmakers keep pushing for realism of motion. What they did for this film was put Ryan Reynolds on wires and actually shoot him “across the room at 200 miles per hour.” The idea was to capture the correct movement of flight: How your body responds to flight, how your feet move, etc. It really comes across as realistic movement in the film. The action sequences are incredible. It can be a trap in films like this to let the action get repetitive, but there is also a chance, with fantasy and comic book movies, to make unique action and to take it to the next level. This film does that. I think a big reason is the fact that Hal Jordan can fight in outer space, or really, the fact that he has the ring. It’s such a unique weapon to have and the filmmakers really took advantage of the kind of action they could show with the resources this story offered. The action is engaging and inventive. And new. They showed me something I’ve never seen before. That alone is worth its weight in gold.

I think a strong reason why I like this film so much is its message: Don’t be afraid. Hal Jordan’s power comes from courage. Not brute strength, not advanced weaponry. Courage. His strength literally comes from within. Even against an enemy as terrifying (and I mean it really is absolutely terrifying) as the Parallax, the way that Jordan prevails is by overcoming fear and relying on his strength of will. I really love messages like this in movies. They push a positive moral truth and teach it through fantasy action, showing this ideal in motion. I think we can all identify with the feeling of fear and how crippling it can be. Even the smallest bit of fear can grow itself within you and control you. But if you rise above the fear and refuse to be its victim, you can accomplish great things.

I’m glad the ring chose Hal Jordan. And I’m glad this movie chose me. Fun. New. Full price ticket. I may even go see it again. Strongly recommended.

'The Hangover: Part II' review.

OK look, I’ve been sitting here for about 3 days amid all my other work, trying to find time to write a nice, balanced review of The Hangover: Part II. The kind of review I try to write: Opinionated, but with a caring touch of unbiased reporting. But in the interest of getting this review out while people will still read it, I’m just going to free write.

Bottom line: The Hangover: Part II is not as good as the first one. That statement doesn’t carry much weight. There are plenty of good sequels that aren’t as good as the originals. Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (which I liked better than the first one), Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, etc. But those sequels are all still good movies. They had a high bar set for them. In the realm of worthy sequels, this movie does not belong.

The movie revolves around the wedding of Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to Lauren (Jamie Chung). Along for the wedding are of course Phil (Bradley Cooper, still delightfully snarky) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Because of the events of the last movie, Stu doesn’t want a bachelor party. Instead, he finally agrees to have one beer on a beach by firelight with his friends and his fiance’s 16-year-old brother Teddy (newcomer Mason Lee). Of course, it turns out not to be just one drink and the gang wakes up the next morning in a shady hotel room in Bangkok, and Teddy is missing. Hilarity ensues, a couple of times.

Before you dismiss my opinion, let me first say that it pains me to review this movie as negatively as I do. It does. I loved the first movie. I own the first movie. I’ve watched it repeatedly. The characters carried with them a sense of brotherhood and camaraderie. That camaraderie is completely absent in this movie. This is especially true of Alan, who in the first movie was kind of an affable idiot. But here, he’s not so much stupid as he is just mean and despicable. I actually didn’t have any problems with Phil. He is the same as he was in the first movie, but then again, we don’t learn anything new about him in this movie. In the first movie, he plays it off like he hates his life, but at the end, we see that he actually loves his family. We see Alan find friends. We see Stu develop the self-confidence to break it off with his abusive cheating girlfriend. In this movie, it’s like Stu has re-developed his insecurity in relation to Lauren’s father, who does not like him and openly insults him. This feels crowbarred in just so that Stu can have an arc. Stu is very much the main character in this film, and it feels weird because the movie should be about the three of them, just like the last movie was. And it wants to be about them all, but there just isn’t enough story there for the three of them.

It’s tough not to compare this film to the first one, but it compares itself to the first one. All the time. They probably figured that people would react negatively if they did not reference the first film, since the premise is so similar. That’s the biggest problem. This film is almost an EXACT COPY of the first film, which would have been fine if it was FUNNY, but it isn’t that funny. What they should have done was try for something different, and find the humor in that. At least then even if it wasn’t funny, they would have done something different. Fail on one level instead of two. They failed on both levels here. It’s like they didn’t even try. Every big laugh in the movie is there just for laughs. It doesn’t feel real. I know that all the circumstances of these movies can’t be taken completely seriously, it’s a comedy. That’s not what I mean. Even in the first movie, everyone reacted realistically to their extraordinary circumstances. In this one, that doesn’t happen and at least for me, it takes me out of the movie.

******SPOILERS*******

Okay, I have to reveal plot details to further explain my point. If you’ve already seen the movie, or don’t care, keep reading this section.

Let me point out the major problems (that I haven’t stated) with this movie in detail. In no particular order.

1. Alan: Alan is not lovable in this movie. He does not like Teddy and is threatened by him to the point that he tries to drug Teddy so that he can’t have fun with the guys. Yes, once again, Alan is responsible for the wild night. Even though he denies it early in the film, it was him once again, and it is not surprising at all. Again, there’s a lack of originality here. Why couldn’t they find another reason for the wild night, other than Alan supposedly meaning well? At least in the last film, he meant to slip ecstacy in everyone’s drinks so that they’d have fun. It turned out to be roofies, thus explaining why no one could remember anything. In this one, it was ADD medicine and cough syrup, I believe. ADD medicine is a cardiac stimulant. Neither it nor cough syrup would make someone completely forget their night. And this time around, he didn’t do it to help his buddies have a good time. He attempted to incapacitate Teddy, messed up, and ended up drugging them all. Thankfully there’s a moment in the film after he admits this where both Phil and Stu get angry with Alan for this and threaten to not be friends with him anymore, but it’s not treated with much weight. I’d never speak to this guy again if it were me.
2. Mr. Chow: I loved Mr Chow in the first movie because Ken Jeong was a great side-gag character. But that’s what he should have stayed: A side-gag character. In this film, he’s much more important to the “plot” in this movie. They seem to have taken his best jokes or Chow-isms from the first movie and blended them together to spit them back out incessantly in this movie. It’s funny until you realize that you want it to stop trying so hard.
3. Stu: Here is one example of a moment where they sacrifice character for laughs. One of the things that happens in the movie is that apparently Stu played the catcher in male gay sex with a pre-op She-male. Funny right? No. Just uncomfortable. What’s worse is that it doesn’t make sense that Stu would do that. In the first movie, Stu marries Heather Graham, a stripper. He does this because it reflects his desire to break free from his abusive girlfriend. Here, it makes ZERO sense and I couldn’t really laugh at it because it just seemed like a shameless grab for a gross-out laugh. Stu isn’t gay. Even really drugged up, it doesn’t make sense that he would consent to have sex with a man.
4. Teddy: I’m sorry, but this kid was not funny. Then again, he’s barely in the movie. He loses a finger in the course of the night’s happenings. When they finally find him and take him back to his father’s house for the wedding, his father is furious. It’s understandable. This kid is sixteen years old, he’s his father’s most prized possession, and his finger is gone forever. That’s right. They didn’t keep the finger and then re-attach it. This kid, who plays the cello, has permanently lost his finger. Yet, he is not at all concerned about it. I’d be really pissed and I’d never hang out with these people again. I wouldn’t tell Stu that “even though I don’t remember anything from last night, I was happy.” NO. That’s stupid. And that doesn’t even make sense.
5. The photos at the end.: At the end of the first movie, Alan comes up to the guys, announcing that he looked at his camera and it was full of telling photos from the night. This made for a very funny montage during the end credits that both explained what happened and was funny. Obviously, since they felt every need to copy the first film, they do this again in this movie, but it feels SO FORCED. Teddy walks up to them and says that he charged his phone and it is full of pictures from the night. Ugh.

******NO MORE SPOILERS*****

I wouldn’t go see this movie in theaters. There’s no need. I’m having a hard time deciding whether or not to recommend it at all, even for rental. Look, you’re probably going to see it anyway, and this movie has already made a crapload of money. But I really don’t recommend it at all. As hard as it is to believe, I really don’t think it is worth seeing. I’ve even heard some critics say that it ruined the first film for them because it made them question the creative choices of Todd Phillips.

Do what you want. But I didn’t like this movie. I agree with those who would say that if you liked the first movie, don't see this one.

The Hangover Part II is playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see it at the Carmike or Hollywood theaters.

'Bridesmaids' was a long ceremony with good food.

It’s difficult to describe my overall impression of Bridesmaids. I wouldn’t say it is a great movie. I wouldn’t say it is a bad movie. It’s simply…..meh.

The movie is directed by Paul Feig (Feeeg), the creator of Freaks and Geeks, a highly overlooked show, and co-written by Kristen Wiig of Saturday Night Live fame, who also stars in the film. The people involved in this project had me sold when I first heard about it. Not to mention the other players involved, including Maya Rudolph (SNL), Wendi McLendon-Covey (Reno 911), and Ellie Kemper (The Office).

In the film, Annie’s (Wiig’s) life kind of sucks. Since her baking business failed, she works in a jewelry store and is a poor saleswoman. Poor in both senses of the word: She makes a horrible salary and anytime she might make a sale, she informs the customers of how worthless an engagement ring is because your lover will just cheat on you or break your heart. Meanwhile, she can’t make the rent for her apartment and is on the verge of being kicked out by her roommate and his freeloading sister. Her love life is nonexistent, and she gets by with frequent sexual romps with Ted (Jon Hamm) who doesn’t actually like her, but uses her for sex and then kicks her out. When Annie’s best friend Lillian (Rudolph) gets engaged, she asks Annie to be her maid of honor. From here, we’re introduced to Helen Harris (Rose Byrne), the “other best friend.” You know, the friend your best friend met recently whom she is very close to and since you two don’t hang out as much, she considers this friend to be special and it’ll be awkward when you two meet? That friend. What do you think happens when the best friend and the other best friend meet, especially when they’re both insecure about how important they are to the bride? They compete for her affection. 

In the midst of this tension, we’re introduced to the other bridesmaids. There’s Becca (Kemper), who is a newlywed and unintentionally makes Annie feel worse about her own crappy love life. There’s Megan (Melissa McCarthy) the groom’s blunt, tomboyish sister. And there’s Rita (McClendon-Covey), who is married with three sons and hates it. We’re also introduced to Nathan Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), a cop who takes a liking to Annie, and maybe she likes him too because he’s actually a nice person who treats her well.  All along the way, numerous things happen in the course of planning the wedding, the dresses, the bachelorette party, and the bridal shower, all while Annie tries to keep her life together in the midst of Helen trying to one-up her as “best friend.”

There aren’t really many distinct positives or negatives about this movie. It really depends on your taste. It’s subjective, like all comedies. I’ve heard critics who praised the movie because it was funny. I’ve also heard critics who saw Wiig’s character as a completely despicable bitch and resented the fact that the movie wanted us to like her. I’m more on the side of praise. My problems with the movie have nothing to do with Wiig’s character. I see her as a tremendously flawed woman who has a lot of issues that she selfishly projects onto those around her. She is not, however, unlikable, and certainly not despicable. She is flawed. Whether you agree with me or not, it doesn’t matter. I have no stake in the success of this movie. No one has a gun to my head telling me to make excuses for this character and her horribleness. It’s my opinion. She is flawed, but I still like her. Most of the “bitchy” things she does in the movie are indeed bitchy, but they’re performed in a comedic context. For those who would retort, “but this needs to take place in the real world, no matter what the genre is”, well, it does, and she gets her real-world comeuppance. So don’t stress about that.

My issue with the movie is its comedy. This film was sold to me on the condition that it was not a chick flick (it wasn’t), it was raunchy enough for a male audience (it was) and that it was funny (it was). It was just kind of long in some parts. For anyone who watches Saturday Night Live, they know the sketches of Kristen Wiig. They’ve seen her quirky characters and her talent for uncomfortable humor. They also see how the sketches carry on FOREVER. I’m not a naysayer. I love Kristen Wiig. She is a talented and funny woman. But I also think sometimes her sketches lose steam because they just keep going with the joke. This happens a number of times in the movie and the audience got bored and sort of got sick of laughing at the same thing over and over again for 5 minutes. I’m not exaggerating. 5 minutes of the same joke. It really messed with the pacing of the film and pace is an important thing for a comedy. It can’t be boring at any point, and God bless it, but this film was boring in several points.

But it has its merits. The cast is funny and I must give the film credit for bringing together these talented women. Even though some of the bridesmaids are underused, they are funny. But the trailer gave me the impression that they would be more present in the movie. Among them is the great Melissa McCarthy, who shines in this movie. When I saw her in the trailer, I kind of cringed. She seemed like she was cast to be the goofy fat friend to cut to for a quick joke, the female Chris Farley. Now, she was that, but she was so much more in this movie. She actually had a character with some depth, and the funniest scenes involved her. Keep an eye on her. She was probably my favorite character.

Overall, I’d go see Bridesmaids, but if you’re going to see it, do what I did. Go to a theater that sells matinee tickets for $3. Since a lot of you won’t get to do that, rent it. It's tough for me to say that, because I want films like this to succeed, and it has, but this is not one of those films that you need to see in theaters. If you still want to, by all means, do it. Bring your friends. You’ll probably laugh. It’s not a bad film. For the record, I admire it for bringing the male and female audiences together. It succeeds on that level. It just forgot to be funny enough for both audiences. 

Bridesmaids is now playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see the film at the Hollywood and Carmike cinemas. 

Movies to see this summer: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II'

What it’s about:
Harry, Ron and Hermoine (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson) continue their final push to locate the Horcruxes and destroy Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes).

Why you might not excited about it:  

There aren’t really many complaints about the Harry Potter film franchise except for discrepancies between the books and the movies. That’s inherent in any book adaptation. 

However, some people did not like that Part I was “too slow and boring.” I don't think it was, but I can see why some people feel that way. There was a heck of a lot of sitting in the woods and debating the next move. But that’s what happens in the story, and it’s character building. There’s a lot of conflict in those scenes and a lot is going on between the characters. Sorry there wasn’t a battle in the middle of all that, but that would have pissed off a lot of people.

And to the people who complain that Part I just felt like a big set-up for Part II, well, it kind of is. That’s why they’re called Part I and Part II. I understand that films should be judged on their own and not based on what comes before or after it, but this is a series. One book/film affects each book after it. That’s the sheer beauty of the stories. Trust me, everything in Part I is just as important as its payoff in Part II.

Why you should be excited for it: 

Listen, if you’ve stuck with the franchise this far, you obviously don’t need me to tell you why this movie will be awesome. This will be the final film of the series and we finally get to see the climactic Battle of Hogwarts. Like I said, there’s not much I can say that you’re not already aware of.

For those who have issues with the pace of Part I, fear not. Part II is going to be much more action-oriented. Plus, everything(not only from Part I but the series as a whole) gets a payoff. I don’t want to talk about too much, having read the books myself, but I will say that this movie should be a satisfying conclusion to this incredible series.

Check out the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mObK5XD8udk

The film opens everywhere on July 15^th. Mobile residents can see the film in 2D and 3D in the Hollywood and Carmike cinemas.